Liberal Judges Decided many of the Earlier Court Decisions On Election Issues– Following the Vote Totals, the Supremes Will Render A Fair Decision
A flurry of court decisions have been written regarding election issues across the country. It is expected that the United States Supreme Court will be writing a dispositive Opinion following the full counting of votes.
These earlier cases were “dealt with on an emergency basis in which the court issues orders that either block or keep in place a lower-court ruling. But there is rarely an explanation of the majority’s rationale, though individual justices sometimes write opinions that partially explain the matter.
Conservative justices who now hold a majority on the Supreme Court have objected to what they see as intrusions by federal judges who order last-minute changes to state election rules, even in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. Liberal Presidents appointed the majority of these judges. Their decisions have been suspect.
“The power to alter absentee ballot deadlines and other voting issues rest with state legislatures, not federal courts, according to the conservative justices.
The court also is divided, but so far has been willing to allow state courts interpreting their own state constitutions to play more of a role than their federal counterparts.
Last week, four conservative justices would have put on hold a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling allowing three additional days to receive and count mailed ballots. Three justices in Wednesday’s order about North Carolina’s absentee ballots would have blocked a six-day extension.
The justices did not finally resolve the legal issues involved, but they could do so after the election. A more thorough examination could come either in a post-election challenge that could determine the presidential winner if, for example, Pennsylvania proves critical to the national outcome, or in a less tense setting that might not affect the 2020 vote but would apply in the future,” the Ap writes.
In a rambling and questionable article, the leftist Washington Post scribed an opinion that the United States was calling their legitimacy into question by taking on too many election cases. The paper writes:
“By intervening so often, the Supreme Court has become a body that corrects perceived lower-court errors, not one that decides major legal issues. By stepping in without explaining its actions, it has tarnished its institutional legitimacy. And by proceeding in haste, the court has made factual and legal mistakes — bad, not just unnecessary, law.
The court’s failure to explain itself in many of its pandemic-era cases makes matters worse. Above all, the court owes its legitimacy to the reasons it generally gives for its decisions. These reasons show all sides that their arguments have been carefully considered.”
The Washington Post is wrong as they continue to follow the script of the leftist Democrats. The court’s legitimacy is not under question; the Washington Post’s biased and practice of suppression and censorship is their problem.
The so-called hasty decisions were necessary given the uneven handling of the claimed election decisions handed down by biased left-leaning judges.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court will issue an extensive and intelligent decision regarding the issues from a conservative perspective. We assume the evidence from the Republicans is credible and if so, the outcome of the election (enough votes) would be affected.